Ibelive in world peace do you?

[Truly Blessed]

the idea of world peace is ridiculous and will never ever be achieved. period.

Really what is so "impossible"? Let's tear into this a little?

Can we properly feed all the people on this planet? I would say - Yes
Can we bring running water and proper sewage treatment to all the places that require it? I would say - Yes
Can we ensure an adequate level of education for all people on this planet? Again I would say - Yes
Can we more equitably distribute the limited resource that we have? Again I would say - Yes

And yet the the above 4 things are what cause a majority of wars?

[Great Imperium Romanum]

I believe in reality. So no, no world peace, as long as the batty old lady next door is abusing her cats there will never be world peace.

[Conserative Morality]

Can we more equitably distribute the limited resource that we have? Again I would say - Yes

There's where your problem starts.

[Free Soviets]

I believe in reality. So no, no world peace, as long as the batty old lady next door is abusing her cats there will never be world peace.

wtf does that have to do with peace?

[Grave_n_idle]

Can we more equitably distribute the limited resource that we have? Again I would say - Yes

There's where your problem starts.

No, that's where that problem ends. That 'problem' - the inequality of distribution - already exists. But it can be solved.

[Grave_n_idle]

I believe in reality. So no, no world peace, as long as the batty old lady next door is abusing her cats there will never be world peace.

wtf does that have to do with peace?

9 out of every 10 wars are the direct results of either old ladies or cats.

[Altergo]

I believe in reality. So no, no world peace, as long as the batty old lady next door is abusing her cats there will never be world peace.

wtf does that have to do with peace?

9 out of every 10 wars are the direct results of either old ladies or cats.

Then how did the Crusades start?

[Scandavian States]

Also, I would argue that war is a useful tool for forcing evolutionary improvement (survival of the fittest)

yeah, survival of those best able to avoid going to war.

Really? So how do you explain Europe?

[Kirav]

I think a world without war would be great. But in reality, world peace would require a one-world government.

Why would that stop war?

It wouldn't neccessarily. But I can't think of anything else that would.

--

The only way to stop war is to eliminate its causes: Economics (Limited resources, Uneven distribution), Political Dissatisfaction, Religious and Ethnic Conflict, International Disagreement, and Greed.

Even in the most perfect Communist utopia, resources are still finite. When things go south, conflict will inevitably erupt.

No governed population will ever fully agree with its government, so Political Dissatisfaction is only avoidable by anarchy. As an anarchistic system cannot be sustained (People will eventually get sick of having to shoot burglars every five seconds and will form tribes and bands for protection, which require a political structure), governments must form, meaning that this cause for war is a fact of life.

Religious and Ethnic Conflict will always exist. Sure, we could try John Lennon's idea and get rid of religion and ethnic affiliation, but they will always come back. Our biology dictates that we must come from other Humans, and our psychology dictates that we must be raised by other Humans in order to function as Humans. Therefore, there will always be groups that identify with each other based on kinship. Since we exist in a spatial realm, identity groups and cultures will arise based on geography. People will also identify with persons that have similar spiritual beliefs.

International Disagreement is perhaps the only one of these factors that can be effectively controlled or eliminated. Through international organisations such as the UN, or, more effectively, a worldwide government (The very idea sickens me), opposing nations can either be arbitrated or, in the latter case, completely eliminated.

As for Greed, there's no ending that. I think that I needn't elaborate any further.

[Reilek]

The Earth we live on can support 12 billion people, to give everyone equal resources, still would mean, Everyone would have 1 or 2 meals a day, there are already too many people on this earth

[Grave_n_idle]

Then how did the Crusades start?

The same old cause - Muslims had all the cats, and Europe had all the old ladies. The Crusades were a direct attempt to recreate the balance, and bring cats back to England.

[Grave_n_idle]

The Earth we live on can support 12 billion people, to give everyone equal resources, still would mean, Everyone would have 1 or 2 meals a day, there are already too many people on this earth

I only eat one meal a day anyway...

If our planet can sustainably feed 12 billion, it could strongly be argued that it could support - maybe - 18 billion with 'better' diets.

[Truly Blessed]

I think a world without war would be great. But in reality, world peace would require a one-world government.

Why would that stop war?

It wouldn't necessarily. But I can't think of anything else that would.

--

The only way to stop war is to eliminate its causes: Economics (Limited resources, Uneven distribution), Political Dissatisfaction, Religious and Ethnic Conflict, International Disagreement, and Greed.

Even in the most perfect Communist utopia, resources are still finite. When things go south, conflict will inevitably erupt.

No governed population will ever fully agree with its government, so Political Dissatisfaction is only avoidable by anarchy. As an anarchistic system cannot be sustained (People will eventually get sick of having to shoot burglars every five seconds and will form tribes and bands for protection, which require a political structure), governments must form, meaning that this cause for war is a fact of life.

Religious and Ethnic Conflict will always exist. Sure, we could try John Lennon's idea and get rid of religion and ethnic affiliation, but they will always come back. Our biology dictates that we must come from other Humans, and our psychology dictates that we must be raised by other Humans in order to function as Humans. Therefore, there will always be groups that identify with each other based on kinship. Since we exist in a spatial realm, identity groups and cultures will arise based on geography. People will also identify with persons that have similar spiritual beliefs.

International Disagreement is perhaps the only one of these factors that can be effectively controlled or eliminated. Through international organisations such as the UN, or, more effectively, a worldwide government (The very idea sickens me), opposing nations can either be arbitrated or, in the latter case, completely eliminated.

As for Greed, there's no ending that. I think that I needn't elaborate any further.

While I agree with you, I would add that we do not have to solve all society’s ills at once, we can pick and choose the ones that are easiest to fix. It is like when you start to clean a really mess room. You start with picking up all the pizza boxes and empty beer bottle. You do not have to clean the entire room in one shot. Each little thing that you do makes the situation a little better. If people see you doing something maybe they will pitch in and help. It also possible they will just laugh at you and ask for the TV remote. You are making the room clean for yourself and no one else to start.

[Kirav]

If our planet can sustainably feed 12 billion, it could strongly be argued that it could support - maybe - 18 billion with 'better' diets.

True, true. 18 billion, thin, beautiful people!

But this, of course, would require a global organisation with immense resources to handle distribution of food, as well as a means of enforcing that noöne encroaches upon anyone else's rations. This in turn would require a one-world government, which would inevitably fail.

Conclusion: We're fucked.

[Kirav]

While I agree with you, I would add that we do not have to solve all society’s ills at once, we can pick and choose the ones that are easiest to fix. It is like when you start to clean a really mess room. You start with picking up all the pizza boxes and empty beer bottle. You do not have to clean the entire room in one shot. Each little thing that you do makes the situation a little better. If people see you doing something maybe they will pitch in and help. It also possible they will just laugh at you and ask for the TV remote. You are making the room clean for yourself and no one else to start.

I agree with you completely. And I fully support efforts to fix one or another of the world's problems. War may be unstoppable, but our will to prevent it should be likewise.

[Grave_n_idle]

If our planet can sustainably feed 12 billion, it could strongly be argued that it could support - maybe - 18 billion with 'better' diets.

True, true. 18 billion, thin, beautiful people!

But this, of course, would require a global organisation with immense resources to handle distribution of food, as well as a means of enforcing that noöne encroaches upon anyone else's rations. This in turn would require a one-world government, which would inevitably fail.

Conclusion: We're fucked.

Better diet doesn't necessarily mean we'd all be 'skinny'. I was actually emphasising 'better' as I did, because I was talking about 'better' in terms of land usage. Especially in the west, we tend to eat a disproportionate amount of meat, and meat production is very land inefficient.

I agree there are logisitic problems to distributing food equitably, but I don't think they're as bad as you suggest, and they certainly don't actually require one-world-government (although that could, potentially, help). You highlighted the bigger problem - not the mechanics of getting it there, but the regulation to make sur it's not being siphoned off.

[Free Soviets]

Also, I would argue that war is a useful tool for forcing evolutionary improvement (survival of the fittest)

yeah, survival of those best able to avoid going to war.

Really? So how do you explain Europe?

explain what about it?

anyway, in so far as war has an evolutionary impact, it would be a selective pressure against those that are most warlike/least able to avoid war, as they are also the most likely to get killed off before successfully passing on their genes.

[Scandavian States]

explain what about it?

That Russia is quite possibly the most warlike country in Europe and has the rest of the continent by the balls economically, which is further backed up with the threat of massive force, which Europe isn't equipped to deal with, should Europe ever fail to comply with Russia's demands. Funny how, in that instance, it's the spineless worms that are most likely to die. Kinda defeats your point, don't you think?

[Altergo]

explain what about it?

That Russia is quite possibly the most warlike country in Europe and has the rest of the continent by the balls economically, which is further backed up with the threat of massive force, which Europe isn't equipped to deal with, should Europe ever fail to comply with Russia's demands. Funny how, in that instance, it's the spineless worms that are most likely to die. Kinda defeats your point, don't you think?

You are mistaken, North Korea and China are more warlike than Russia. If an American Airplane crashed in China, the survivors would be thrown in jail and the plane scraped.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Then how did the Crusades start?

The same old cause - Muslims had all the cats, and Europe had all the old ladies. The Crusades were a direct attempt to recreate the balance, and bring cats back to England.

ding ding ding sigged.

[Free Soviets]

explain what about it?

That Russia is quite possibly the most warlike country in Europe and...

has a gdp per capita on par with venezuela and a crashing population!

[Altergo]

Then how did the Crusades start?

The same old cause - Muslims had all the cats, and Europe had all the old ladies. The Crusades were a direct attempt to recreate the balance, and bring cats back to England.

That's weird and funny, I'll give you that

[Grave_n_idle]

Then how did the Crusades start?

The same old cause - Muslims had all the cats, and Europe had all the old ladies. The Crusades were a direct attempt to recreate the balance, and bring cats back to England.

That's weird and funny, I'll give you that

It's true! Don't laugh!

Remember at school, when they told you how The Great War was caused by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand?

You know what they're hiding from you? Franz Ferdinand was born Franz FUR-dinand. He was a cat.

World War Two? Caused by the invasion of Poland. What was the top secret name for that invasion? "Unternehmen Fall Weiss". Meaning "Case White". What they DON'T tell you? The 'white' reference is talking about hair colour. Poland was invaded by old ladies.

[Altergo]

It's true! Don't laugh!

Remember at school, when they told you how The Great War was caused by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand?

You know what they're hiding from you? Franz Ferdinand was born Franz FUR-dinand. He was a cat.

World War Two? Caused by the invasion of Poland. What was the top secret name for that invasion? "Unternehmen Fall Weiss". Meaning "Case White". What they DON'T tell you? The 'white' reference is talking about hair colour. Poland was invaded by old ladies.

Stop it!!! Your killing me!!!!

[Treznor]

explain what about it?

That Russia is quite possibly the most warlike country in Europe and has the rest of the continent by the balls economically, which is further backed up with the threat of massive force, which Europe isn't equipped to deal with, should Europe ever fail to comply with Russia's demands. Funny how, in that instance, it's the spineless worms that are most likely to die. Kinda defeats your point, don't you think?

You are mistaken, North Korea and China are more warlike than Russia. If an American Airplane crashed in China, the survivors would be thrown in jail and the plane scraped.

You mean, like they did in 2001? Except they just returned the plane in pieces.